envirojeff Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 It's my belief that Yes, the goon is gone. The evolution of the game with blistering speed and incredible athleticism has brought on the end of the enforcer. There will still be fights, but more as a reaction and less as a tactical move by coaches. What's your opinion? Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 I have broached this subject breifly in other threads. It would seem like that is the direction the league is headed. I can only hope, because if the Sabres can dress another scorer, when healthy this team will really be hard to handle. I also am hoping we can break up Gaustad and Mair and pair them with scorers. This would increase hitting on those lines and create four genuine scoring lines, not 3 plus the oft-mentioned "energy" line. I think Paul's potential will only be reached if he plays with an offensive threat like Drury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 I'm not convinced as it has a deep rooted history. I think the trend is away for the moment. That is until one team figures out a way to make it effective again. Teams copy winning formulas. If anything, the size of the goon may decrease, but goons have always had their place and purpose in hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
envirojeff Posted November 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Both excellent points, thanks guy's Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 I'm not convinced as it has a deep rooted history. I think the trend is away for the moment. That is until one team figures out a way to make it effective again. Teams copy winning formulas. If anything, the size of the goon may decrease, but goons have always had their place and purpose in hockey. Perhaps more Darcy Tucker types. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediumishot Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 god i hope not, thats just one more person to the list of players id like to see get hit with a zamboni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 I don't know Just because right now, a team like the Sabres thats built on speed is working, doesn't mean it will work forever. Sometime somone will come up with a way to counteract it and find a way to beat that kind of team, and from the looks of it, thats already starting by just getting physical with those teams. Typically the fast "flashy" type players like Max, are not big and physical and when teams start hitting them around, they get slowed down. Usually you have an "enforcer" or "Goon" to counteract this and protect the smaller guys. I always think that teams will still need them, but with the salary cap, they are either going to have to contribute in other ways like Tucker (I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit with that one) or be cheap and play only when needed (like Peters) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 I don't know Just because right now, a team like the Sabres thats built on speed is working, doesn't mean it will work forever. Sometime somone will come up with a way to counteract it and find a way to beat that kind of team, and from the looks of it, thats already starting by just getting physical with those teams. Typically the fast "flashy" type players like Max, are not big and physical and when teams start hitting them around, they get slowed down. Usually you have an "enforcer" or "Goon" to counteract this and protect the smaller guys. I always think that teams will still need them, but with the salary cap, they are either going to have to contribute in other ways like Tucker (I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit with that one) or be cheap and play only when needed (like Peters) Apus, I've seen you and several others state that you think that an "enforcer" or "goon" protects the smaller players. In the 70's and 80's that was true (e.g. Dave Shultz or Dave Semenko), but I don't believe it is today. When a player runs or cheap shots someone, yes the coach will bring his "enforcer" out on some occassions. But I can't think of a single example in the last 5 years where the "goon" went after the guy who threw the cheap shot. He doesn't even go out and try to take liberties with the other team's smaller players (except in VERY rare occasions, Darcie comes to mind, but then Darcie NEVER goes after players that might fight back). The "goon" goes after the other team's "goon". I don't see where that'll show the offender that the other team means business. If you have an example (or better yet, several) of a player (not explicitly on the team to be the "goon")cheap shotting another and then THAT player getting his lunch handed to him I could begin to see a validity to the point of keeping a "goon" on the roster. But honestly, I can't think of any examples of it. The only reason I see to keep a "goon" on the roster is to keep the other team's "goon" from cheap shotting your players because the "goon" is the only player your own "goon" will fight. Mair and Goose are effective not because they keep the other team from throwing an elbow at Campbell's head, but because they finish their checks and cause players to move the puck before they want to. Peters is an adequate 13th forward and was actually playing better than I expected him to, but the Sabres have better options to put into the 12th forward spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Apus, I've seen you and several others state that you think that an "enforcer" or "goon" protects the smaller players. In the 70's and 80's that was true (e.g. Dave Shultz or Dave Semenko), but I don't believe it is today. When a player runs or cheap shots someone, yes the coach will bring his "enforcer" out on some occassions. But I can't think of a single example in the last 5 years where the "goon" went after the guy who threw the cheap shot. He doesn't even go out and try to take liberties with the other team's smaller players (except in VERY rare occasions, Darcie comes to mind, but then Darcie NEVER goes after players that might fight back). The "goon" goes after the other team's "goon". I don't see where that'll show the offender that the other team means business. If you have an example (or better yet, several) of a player (not explicitly on the team to be the "goon")cheap shotting another and then THAT player getting his lunch handed to him I could begin to see a validity to the point of keeping a "goon" on the roster. But honestly, I can't think of any examples of it. The only reason I see to keep a "goon" on the roster is to keep the other team's "goon" from cheap shotting your players because the "goon" is the only player your own "goon" will fight. Mair and Goose are effective not because they keep the other team from throwing an elbow at Campbell's head, but because they finish their checks and cause players to move the puck before they want to. Peters is an adequate 13th forward and was actually playing better than I expected him to, but the Sabres have better options to put into the 12th forward spot. Just to further your point, look at who went after Kasparaitis last year when they thought his hip check on Connolly was just a little too low....Drury and Grier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 During the 1st intermission of the Bruins-Lightning game tonight, they had PJ Stock and Ron Duguay on talking about a charity event. One of the guys asked Stock who was the toughest guy he ever fought. He said that they were all tough because he only really fought the other teams bruiser. But he did say that if he had to pick one, it would be Rob Ray: "I always give him credit because he broke my face." Duguay then asked if it was the first or third punch. Stock: "He got lucky with the first 14 or 15 punches. Mr. Ray if you're watching, thank you." :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.